Comments on Tahoe National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Designation

May 29, 2018

Joe Chavez On behalf of Eli Ilano, Forest Supervisor Tahoe National Forest 631 Coyote Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Digital copy with attachments on USB submitted via USPS priority mail; electronic version submitted via email to: [email protected], [email protected]

Re: Comments on Tahoe National Forest Over-snow Vehicle Designation

To Tahoe Forest Supervisor Eli Ilano:

WildEarth Guardians, The Wilderness Society, Forest Issues Group, Sierra Forest Legacy, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, and Lassen Forest Preservation Group respectfully submit these comments to the U.S. Forest Service regarding its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analyzing the Tahoe National Forest’s Over-snow Vehicle Designations. Under modified proposed Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposes to designate 406,895 acres as open to over-snow vehicle (OSV) use, 325 miles of OSV trails, and 22 Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) crossings, and apply a minimum snow depth of 12 inches for cross-country OSV use and grooming and 6 inches for OSV use over roads.

WildEarth Guardians is a nonprofit conservation organization with offices in Oregon and five other states. WildEarth Guardians has more than 207,000 members and supporters across the United States and the world. Guardians protects and restores wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and the health of the American West. For many years, WildEarth Guardians has advocated for protection of wild places and wildlife from the disruption of snowmobiles. We have organizational interests in the proper and lawful management of winter motorized travel and its associated impacts on the Tahoe National Forest’s wildlife and wild places.

The Wilderness Society is the leading conservation organization working to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. Founded in 1935, and now with more than one million members and supporters, The Wilderness Society has led the effort to permanently protect 109 million acres of wilderness and ensure sound management of our shared national lands. We provide scientific, economic, legal, and policy guidance to land managers, communities, local conservation groups, and state and federal decisionmakers. In doing so, we hope to ensure the best management of our public lands for recreation, wildlife conservation, water quality, and the ability to enjoy public lands for inspiration and spiritual renewal. The Wilderness Society’s members in California, and members from elsewhere who visit California, enjoy the Lassen National Forest for activities such as hiking, backpacking, skiing, wildlife viewing, and camping, and for the aesthetic, spiritual, and wildlife values and opportunities it provides.

Forest Issues Group (FIG) is a 501(c)3 non-profit that focuses its activities on the public lands of the sierran forests and the impact of U.S. Forest Service management and private timber sales on these forests. FIG is an organization made up of local citizens committed to healthy national forests. FIG provides community education and public review of U.S. Forest Service management of the National Forests.

Sierra Forest Legacy (SFL) is a regional environmental coalition with over 50 partner groups. SFL is focused on the conservation, enhancement and protection of old growth forests, wildlands, at-risk species, protection of the region’s rivers and streams, and the ecological processes that shape the forest ecosystem of the Sierra Nevada. SFL is a leader in bringing together scientists and diverse interests on a wide range of forest issues including fire ecology, fuels management, protection of at- risk wildlife species, and socio-economic values associated with public forest management. SFL has been involved and project and land management planning on the Tahoe National Forest since 1996.

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all wild animals and plants in their natural communities. To that end, Defenders employs science, public education and participation, media, legislative advocacy, litigation, and proactive on-the-ground solutions in order to prevent the extinction of species, associated loss of biological diversity, and habitat alteration and destruction.

The mission of the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society is to educate ourselves and others to the variety and the beauty of our natural environment and to protect our wildlife and natural places. We do this through classroom programs, field trips, membership programs, research support, and advocating for wildlife and natural places in our sphere of influence – Placer, Nevada, Yuba, Sierra, and part of El Dorado Counties.

The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation is a grassroots environmental organization dedicated to the protection of ecosystem values and the long-term sustainability of our natural resources for future generations.

Our groups submitted timely scoping comments on the Forest Service’s proposed action to designate OSV use on the Tahoe.1 Our comments urged the Forest Service to ensure the Tahoe’s OSV plan satisfies the Forest Service’s substantive legal duty to locate areas and trails designated as open to OSV use to minimize resource damage, harassment of wildlife, and conflicts with the majority of winter visitors enjoying non-motorized, quiet forms of recreation.

1. We strongly support the Forest Service’s efforts to meaningfully evaluate and manage motorized winter travel on the Tahoe National Forest.

We sincerely appreciate the significant work that the Forest Service has put into the analysis in this DEIS. Overall, we believe the analysis provides a relatively thorough discussion of the impacts associated with OSV use. In particular, we are very pleased to see the Forest Service consider OSV impacts to roadless characteristics (see, e.g., DEIS at 82, 100) and wilderness attributes (DEIS at 79) under each alternative; analyze a robust range of alternatives to allow for meaningful comparison; consider classification and designation of OSV areas and trails by OSV class; and provide a clear description of the minimization criteria. We applaud the agency for identifying 21 discrete areas that better reflect the paradigm shift – from a default open unless designated closed approach, to a closed unless designated open approach – that subpart C requires. The Tahoe’s approach here is much more granular than we have seen on other forests and more closely aligns with the Travel Management Rule, executive orders, and case law. And we applaud the Forest Service for considering alternatives that protect Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), avoid designating OSV use below 5,000 feet in elevation due to limited snow cover, and avoid designating OSV use in key deer winter range.

However, Alternatives 2 and 4 continue to suffer from a number of deficiencies, including questions about whether the Forest Service has adequately minimized harm to natural resources including roadless and wilderness values, harassment of sensitive wildlife, disruption of wildlife habitat, and conflicts with non-motorized uses. We believe specific modifications from Alternatives 3 and 5 are necessary to satisfy governing legal requirements, including the minimization criteria, and provide for balanced and sustainable recreation opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized users. We encourage the Forest Service to adopt modifications from Alternatives 3 and 5, as well as remedy the following deficiencies described in more detail in the following sections:

1. Ensure that all OSV trails – including those located within open areas – that are maintained, marked on the ground, or displayed on any winter recreation guides or use maps are analyzed and designated according to the minimization criteria; 2. Better articulate how the boundaries of open areas and locations of trails were delineated to minimize damage to natural resources, harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat, and conflicts with other recreational uses; 3. Ensure all areas identified as “not conducive to OSV use” are eliminated from open areas; 4. Ensure OSV designation decisions minimize impacts to roadless and wilderness values, including those identified by The Wilderness Society’s recent field-verified inventory of

1 See March 25, 2015, Comment Letter from The Wilderness Society, WildEarth Guardians, Forest Issues Group, Sierra Foothills Audubon, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Sierra Club, and Sierra Forest Legacy on Tahoe National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation Proposed Action, submitted to Michael Woodbridge (hereafter, “Scoping”).

wilderness-quality lands on the forest, and do not prejudice the future wilderness recommendation process; and 5. Demonstrate how the proposed OSV designations comply with the agency’s duties under the National Forest Management Act and Endangered Species Act.

Snowlands Network and Winter Wildlands Alliance also submitted comments detailing specific recommended changes that focus primarily on non-motorized, backcountry recreation and minimizing conflicts between recreational uses. We support those recommendations in addition to what is provided in this comment. We believe that making these changes in the final EIS will result in a defensible and sustainable winter travel management plan that provides for quality winter recreation and access, adequately protects wildlife, wilderness values, and other sensitive resources, and reflects the requirements and intent of subpart C.

2. Comply with the Travel Management Rule.

Subpart C of the Travel Management Rule requires the Forest Service to designate roads, trails, and areas for OSV use where snowfall is adequate for that use to occur, and reflect those designations on an over-snow vehicle use map (OSVUM). 36 C.F.R. § 212.81(a). While the Tahoe DEIS demonstrates significant improvement in Travel Management Rule compliance over other winter travel plans in Region 5 and elsewhere, the Forest Service’s approach still fails to comply with this regulation in at least two respects.

First, the Forest Service fails to ensure snowfall is adequate for OSV use in many of the areas designated for OSV use. Particularly with climate change leading to reduced and less reliable snowpack, low-elevation and other areas that lack regular and consistent snowfall should not be designated for OSV use. We are pleased to see the Forest Service generally not designate OSV use below 5,000 feet in elevation. In its analysis, the Forest Service also identifies areas that are “not conducive to OSV use” in its assumptions regarding impacts to wildlife, concluding that areas below 3,500 feet elevation (in addition to, inter alia, areas where canopy cover is greater than 70 percent and slope is greater than or equal to 20 percent) will receive low OSV use. See, e.g., DEIS at 197. To comply with the plain language of the subpart C regulations and the minimization criteria, the agency should eliminate areas “not conducive to OSV use” from its OSV designations.

The agency’s reliance on minimum snow depths, generally, is also insufficient to ensure adequate snowpack for OSV use. This is especially true for the alternatives that propose varying standards for cross-country OSV use as compared to OSV use on trails overlying roads. For example, proposed action Alternative 2 applies a minimum snow depth of 12 inches for cross-country OSV use and grooming, and 6 inches for OSV trails overlying roads. Much of the discussion of OSV impacts relies on an assumption that 6 inches of snow cover is “adequate snow cover” to reduce the impacts of OSV use, without justifying that assumption or providing a scientific basis for that conclusion.2

2 See, e.g., DEIS at 153 (relying on “adequate snow cover” for its assumptions that OSV use on trails will result in negligible contact with bare soil, minimal disturbance of trail and road surfaces, and would not substantially impact water quality), 164 (relying on “adequate snow depths” for its assumption that cross-country OSV use will be consistent with the Tahoe Forest Plan’s Riparian Conservation Objectives and watershed management standards and guidelines and management prescriptions), 174 (concluding the 6-inch minimum snow depth on trails and 12-inch minimum snow depth for cross-country OSV use under Alternatives 2 and 4 “is adequate to mitigate and eliminate substantial water quality impacts.”).

A consistent 12-inch minimum snow depth for both designated areas and routes would largely provide an adequate buffer against soil compaction, crushing of vegetation and subnivean spaces, and other adverse impacts, and help account for variable snowpack in different seasons as well as different impacts among vehicle classes. See May 2017 Report by Dr. Benjamin Hatchett on Observed and Stimulated Snow Depths for Commencing Over Snow Vehicle Operation in the Sierra Nevada (Attachment A). The same is not true for a six-inch minimum snow depth. The Forest Service itself notes that “[s]now depth and density and vary considerably, especially in the spring and fall” and that “OSV use can cause rutting on underlying roads and trails, soil disturbance to streambanks at crossings and in areas without adequate snow depth and density.” DEIS Appendix E at 35.

What’s more, setting a single minimum snow depth would provide consistency to ease enforcement and ensure that users do not leave designated routes in low-snow conditions to travel cross-country. We urge the Forest Service to implement and enforce a consistent 12-inch minimum snow depth requirement using a combination of weather station data, Forest Service staff judgment, and trailhead observations, with restrictions clearly posted on information kiosks at trailheads and on the forest website.

Second, the Forest Service improperly fails to designate OSV trails located within areas open to OSV use. Each of the proposed alternatives would allow OSV use on marked, ungroomed trails that the Forest Service claims it does not need to designate for OSV use because they are within areas designated for OSV use. See DEIS at 44, Table 18 (Alternative 1 would allow 41.25 miles, Alternative 2 would allow 14.32 miles, Alternative 3 would allow 38.31 miles, Alternative 4 would allow 22.03 miles, and Alternative 5 would allow 25 miles). The agency states it “recognizes no need to designate OSV trails, only identify them, in areas that would be designated as open to cross- country OSV use” because “OSV use would not be confined to the trail.” DEIS at 9. Each of these OSV trails are marked on the forest’s proposed over-snow vehicle use maps (OSVUMs). See Map Package 1 of 2, Map Package 2 of 2. The specific trails include portions of:

• Andesite West OSV Trail (located in the Donner Summit & Summit West areas) would be 2.47 miles under Alternative 1, 1.68 miles under Alternative 2, and 2.88 miles under Alternative 4. This trail would be a continuation of the designated portion of the Andesite West OSV Trail, which goes to Andesite Peak. • Gold Valley OSV Trail (in the Yuba NE area) would be 11.46 miles under Alternative 1, 12.64 miles under Alternative 2, 10.98 miles under Alternative 3, 11.46 miles under Alternative 4, and 5.28 miles under Alternative 5. This OSV trail is part of the connector from Packer Lake to Spencer Lakes. • Mosquito Ridge OSV Trail (Foresthill East area) would be 21.11 miles under Alternative 1, 18.31 miles under Alternative 3, and 19.50 miles under Alternative 5. It is a continuation of the 46.9 miles of designated OSV trail overlaying Forest Road 96, a paved road. DEIS Appendix F at 231. • Martis Peak OSV Trail (Truckee area) would be 0.06 mi under Alternative 5. It is a connector between an OSV trail in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and 1.8 miles of designated OSV trail on the Tahoe National Forest that leads to Martis Peak Lookout. Appendix F at 223. It does not appear that any portion of this area is designated for OSV use under Alternative 5. • Sawtooth OSV Trail (Truckee area) would be 6.22 miles under Alternative 1, 9.02 miles under Alternative 3, and 7.69 miles under Alternative 4. It provides a connection from the

town of Truckee, through Goose Meadow, to a designated OSV trail that leads to Watson Lake and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. • White Rock Lake OSV Trail (in the Sierraville West area) does not actually appear to be within an area designated for OSV use. See Map Package 2 of 2. Yet the Forest Service proposes OSV use on 0.21 miles of this trail under Alternative 5 without actually designating the trail for OSV use.

Many of the OSV trails provide a clear or level path, sometimes through dense vegetation or other inaccessible terrain. Many continue a path from designated OSV trails and many provide connections to destinations such as peaks and lakes, meaning that OSV use is likely to remain concentrated on these routes. Indeed, the Forest Service assumes there will be moderate OSV use in areas within 0.5 miles of marked (not groomed) trails, as compared to low or no OSV use in meadows 30 acres or greater and areas more than 0.5 miles from marked (not groomed) OSV trails. DEIS at 51. Thus impacts are likely to be concentrated on these OSV trails within open areas. See, e.g., DEIS at 255-256 (noting “[i]ndirect effects, such as those possibly resulting from snow compaction and vehicle emissions, are likely be concentrated in the corridors along designated OSV trails (groomed or ungroomed) because OSV use is concentrated” while “[a]reas designed for OSV use outside these concentrated use corridors are much less likely to experience measurable indirect effects.”). By not designating these OSV trails, the Forest Service ignores very real, harmful direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

Allowing OSV use on trails without designating those trails for OSV use is contrary to the Travel Management Rule and Forest Service’s own definitions. DEIS at 2 (defining “Designation of over- snow vehicle use” as “Designation of a National Forest System road, . . . trail, or an area . . . where over-snow vehicle use is allowed pursuant to CFR 212.81”). Not designating these marked OSV trails is also contrary to Forest Service direction. See, e.g., Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7716.41 (directing the agency to “Identify all roads, trails, and areas designated for OSV use under Subpart C in an administrative unit or Ranger District on an OSVUM” and noting “After publication of an . . . OSVUM, . . . OSV use is allowed only on roads, on trails, and in areas designated for that purpose (36 CFR 261.13, 261.14)). See also FSM 7716.42(2) (“Information on route markers and signs must correspond to the information shown on the corresponding . . . OSVUM.”). Each of these trails are marked on the proposed OSVUM maps. The Forest Service itself describes the OSV trails within OSV areas as “marked” trails.

To comply with the Travel Management Rule the Forest Service must designate all trails it proposes to allow for OSV use, even if those trails are within areas open to OSV use. It also must revise the proposed action to accurately reflect the miles of OSV trails designated under each alternative, and consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of designating these trails for OSV use.

3. Avoid designating for OSV use lands suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

In anticipation of a forest plan revision, TWS conducted an intensive inventory and evaluation of lands on the Tahoe National Forest that are suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). We urge the forest to consider our methodology and results in this winter travel planning process, including by analyzing at least one alternative that would not designate any areas in the inventory as open to OSV use, and modifying Alternative 2 to not

6 designate most or all existing IRAs as open to OSV use. Such alternatives are necessary to ensure that the Forest Service minimizes impacts to wilderness-quality lands and does not short-circuit or prejudice the mandatory wilderness recommendation process that will occur during the Tahoe’s forest plan revision.

Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation

The Tahoe National Forest will likely initiate a comprehensive revision of its 1990 Forest Plan in the coming years. Under the 2012 planning rule governing the revision process, the forest will be required to “[i]dentify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and determine whether to recommend any such lands for wilderness designation.”3 The agency’s directives governing the wilderness inventory and evaluation process (Chapter 70 of Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12), require the forest to first conduct a comprehensive inventory of all roadless lands that may be suitable for wilderness designation and then evaluate the wilderness characteristics of those lands pursuant to the criteria in section 2(c) of The Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. § 1131(c).4 Based on the results of the evaluation and public input, the forest then must analyze in the EIS for the plan revision potential recommended wilderness areas, and ultimately decide whether to recommend any of those areas for wilderness designation.5

Forest plans must “provide for . . . management of areas recommended for wilderness designation to protect and maintain the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for wilderness designation.”6 The 2012 planning rule’s substantive requirements to provide for ecological sustainability and integrity, species diversity, and sustainable recreation complement the wilderness recommendation process.7 A robust network of conserved roadless lands, including designated and recommended wilderness, is a critical component of achieving those substantive requirements. The Chapter 70 directives are designed to facilitate creation of such a network through a transparent process with meaningful opportunities for public engagement and input.

In anticipation of the upcoming wilderness recommendation process, TWS conducted an intensive, field-verified inventory and evaluation of lands on the Tahoe National Forest that are suitable for inclusion in the NWPS. We conducted comparable inventories for the Eldorado, Stanislaus, and Plumas National Forests as well. Our methodology is described in detail in the protocol (see Attachments B1 and B2), which adheres closely to the Chapter 70 directives and is designed to supplement and enhance the Forest Service process through robust and comprehensive field- verification and data collection of what would otherwise largely be a desktop exercise. The results of our inventory and evaluation are displayed on an interactive online webmap available at: https://wilderness.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=634a69ea49fc40c48b858fa 2424663a4 (last accessed May 29, 2018). On the Tahoe, our initial inventory – adjusted based on field technicians’ on-the-ground inventories and evaluations (see footnote 9) - identified 10 individual units totaling 214,423 acres that may be suitable for inclusion in the NWPS.8 This

3 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(c)(2)(v). 4 FSH 1909.12, ch. 70, §§ 71-72. 5 FSH 1909.12, ch. 70, §§ 73-74. 6 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(b)(iv). 7 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.8-219.10. 8 The online web map includes 8 polygons in Tahoe National Forest that we identified in our initial G.I.S. inventory. We expanded the number of wilderness-eligible roadless polygons to 10 after ground-checking 2 Inventoried Roadless Areas

7 represents an increase of 74,263 acres over existing IRAs on the forest. We also produced detailed narrative reports for each of the ten inventory units describing its wilderness characteristics. See Attachment C.9 The information contained in the reports represents best available scientific information that the Forest Service is obligated to use during its upcoming plan revision.10

OSV Impacts to Roadless and Wilderness Values

Designating roadless areas with wilderness characteristics as open to OSV use degrades their naturalness and other ecological values, diminishes opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, and vastly reduces the likelihood that the Forest Service would recommend the areas for inclusion in the NWPS or that Congress would eventually designate them.11 In other words, OSV designation decisions made in the ongoing winter travel planning process may prejudice the upcoming wilderness recommendation process by potentially disqualifying or downgrading areas that might otherwise be suitable for wilderness designation.

The Forest Service is required to fully analyze those impacts under NEPA and to minimize degradation to wilderness values under the minimization criteria when making OSV designation decisions. See Mont. Wilderness Association v. McAllister, 666 F.3d 549, 558 (9th Cir. 2011) (Forest Service failed to maintain wilderness character by ignoring impacts of increased motorized uses on opportunities for solitude); Idaho Conservation League v. Guzman, 766 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1066-68, 1071- 77 (D. Idaho 2011) (agency must analyze and minimize impacts of motorized uses on wilderness values and roadless characteristics). This will necessarily require a robust range of alternatives to adequately analyze the trade-offs associated with designating wilderness-quality lands as open to OSV use. The Forest Service must thoroughly analyze and minimize impacts of its OSV designation decisions to wilderness-eligible lands. This will require full consideration of the best available scientific information associated with TWS’s wilderness inventory and evaluation and analysis of a robust range of alternatives. See, e.g., Attachments G-K (comparing TWS’s citizen-inventoried roadless areas with proposed OSV route and area designations under Alternatives 1-5). The analysis in the DEIS should include at least one alternative that would not designate any areas in the TWS inventory as open to OSV use and modify Alternative 2 to not designate most or all existing IRAs

that initially appeared to be under the 5,000-acre minimum. After checking the areas in the field, we determined that those 2 polygons (Bald Mountain IRA and Middle Yuba IRA) did, in fact, after some roadless-area boundary adjustments, meet the minimum standard for wilderness recommendation. 9 The acreages in these written narrative reports are the GIS initial inventory acreages. TWS later adjusted the boundaries on the web maps based on the information from the field technicians’ on-the-ground inventories and evaluations. The “ground-truthed” acres can be calculated from the GIS layer of that name. 10 36 C.F.R. § 219.3. 11 See, e.g., Martin Nie & Christopher Barns, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Wilderness Act: The Next Chapter in Wilderness Designation, Politics, and Management, 5 Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 237-301 (2014) (Attachment D) (documenting instances where Forest Service has retracted wilderness recommendations due to motorized uses the agency has permitted or where wilderness boundaries have been redrawn to accommodate such uses); Idaho Conservation League, In Need of Protection: How Off-Road Vehicles and Snowmobiles Are Threatening the Forest Service’s Recommended Wilderness Areas (Feb. 2011) (Attachment E) (documenting degradation by snowmobile use of wilderness characteristics in Idaho forests, based in part on significant increases in use and technological capability); John C. Adams & Stephen F. McCool, Finite Recreation Opportunities: The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Off-Road Vehicle Management, 49 Natural Resources Journal 45-116 (Winter 2009) (Attachment F) (documenting how “Congress has been extremely reluctant to designate areas as wilderness if there is established [off-road vehicle] use” and that “[t]he allocation to [motorized] use creates a prejudicial history of use and a constituency with a vested and rhetorically-potent interest in opposing wilderness designation”) (cited articles attached).

(which generally will constitute the core of the Forest Service’s upcoming Chapter 70 inventory) as open to OSV use.

4. Demonstrate application of the minimization criteria in the record.

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and the Travel Management Rule, 36 C.F.R. § 212.55 & 212.81(d), impose a substantive legal duty to locate areas and trails designated for OSV use to minimize impacts to natural resources and conflicts with other recreational uses. We agree with the Forest Service that in applying the minimization criteria, the agency retains flexibility to manage for a reasonable reduction of impacts while still addressing the need to provide areas and trails for public OSV experiences. DEIS at 5. Nevertheless, the Forest Service must apply the minimization criteria to each specific area and trail.12

Recognizing that compliance with the minimization criteria has been a significant stumbling block in many travel management decisions, The Wilderness Society and BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org recently released a set of joint recommendations designed to assist federal land management agencies with compliance (Attachment L). We encourage the Forest Service to review and integrate these recommendations into its OSV designation decisions. We also encourage the Forest Service to review and integrate the best management practices for OSV planning published in a 2016 article by Adam Switalski in the Journal of Conservation Planning (Attachment M).

We appreciate the effort the Forest Service has put into applying the minimization criteria. See DEIS Appendices E & F. Overall, a combination of Alternatives 3 and 5 would best minimize impacts to various resources. For instance, Alternative 3 best minimizes impacts to designated wilderness by not designating areas for OSV use within one-half mile of wilderness boundaries, ensuring minimization of impacts to designated wilderness. DEIS at xiv. And Alternative 3 imposes a consistent 18-inch minimum snow depth for OSV use on designated snow trails and within areas designated for cross-country OSV use, providing a strong basis for relying on minimum snow depths to minimize impacts to soils, water quality, and vegetation. Alternative 5 best minimizes impacts to roadless characteristics by designating only three percent of the total IRAs on the forest as open to OSV use. As documented in The Wilderness Society’s field-verified inventory, described in detail above, many of these IRAs and other surrounding roadless lands exhibit wilderness characteristics that must be considered in the forest’s upcoming mandatory wilderness recommendation process. Alternative 5 would best ensure that OSV designation decisions do not prejudice that future process. Alternative 5 also best minimizes impacts to the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) by not designating OSV use in the “foreground” – creating up to a half-mile buffer along the PCT. Nevertheless, the analysis in the DEIS continues to suffer from a number of deficiencies related to minimization criteria compliance.

Route-by-Route and Area-by-Area

12 See Exec. Or. 11644 (requiring application of the minimization criteria to the “designation of the specific areas and trails”) (emphasis added); WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 790 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The TMR is concerned with the effects of each particularized area and trail designation” and “The minimization criteria must be applied accordingly”).

While we are pleased to see the Forest Service delineate discrete open areas, the DEIS still lacks necessary information about how and why the agency located the boundaries of those open areas where it did. For instance, it is unclear how the agency located area boundaries to minimize harassment of wolverine or disruption of its habitat, or disruption of California red-legged frog and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat, as described in more detail below. Similarly, the DEIS lacks information on how and why specific snow trails were located to minimize impacts. There is no distinction as to the different combinations of trails among alternatives in Appendix F. What’s more, the mileage of designated snow trails varies very little across alternatives, demonstrating the agency did not seriously consider the location of designated trails. In short, the Forest Service has not demonstrated how it located areas and trails to minimize impacts.

Reliance on Mitigation Measures

The Forest Service’s approach relies too heavily on potential future mitigation actions, many of which rely on uncertain future monitoring, lack specificity and clear triggers for implementation, are unenforceable, and lack demonstrated effectiveness in reducing impacts. Rather than locating the areas to minimize impacts, the Forest Service skips that step and instead identifies measures to manage OSV use to minimize likely impacts. DEIS Appendix E (Mitigations for Designated Areas) and F (Mitigations for Designated Trails). The Forest Service may not rely on potential future mitigation measures and other generalized statements to demonstrate compliance with the minimization criteria. While establishing site-specific management actions and mitigation measures is an important part of the overall effort to designate a motorized system that minimizes impacts, it does not satisfy the obligation to apply relevant data to locate areas and trails to minimize impacts in the first instance. The agency also fails to assess the effectiveness of these mitigation measures, in violation of NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h), 1508.25(b).

OSV Trails in Open Areas

It is unreasonable for the Forest Service to avoid applying the minimization criteria to between 14 and 41 miles of OSV trails located within open areas by claiming it is not designating these trails for OSV use. DEIS at 9. The Forest Service has a substantive legal obligation to meaningfully apply and implement – not just identify or consider – the minimization criteria when designating each area and trail, and to show in the administrative record how it did so.13 As explained above, the Forest Service unreasonably does not designate trails for OSV use even though it proposes to authorize OSV use on those trails, and thereby improperly avoids application of the minimization criteria to those trails. For example, in Appendix F, for the Andesite West OSV trail the Forest Service considers mitigation measures to minimize impacts from the 3.5 miles of marked and designated OSV trail (red and white hash on maps), which is distinct from the marked, ungroomed OSV trail the Forest Service claims is not designated (purple and white hash). See also DEIS at 44 (distinguishing “Marked, Ungroomed Trails for OSV Use” from “Designated OSV Trails Not Available for Grooming”).

Minimize Impacts to Roadless & Wilderness Values

13 36 C.F.R. § 212.55(b), 212.81(d). See also WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 790 F.3d 920, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating the agency must “apply the minimization criteria to each area [and trail] it designate[s] for [OSV] use” and conduct a “granular minimization analysis to fulfill the objectives of Executive Order 11644” and the Travel Management Rule).

The analysis in the DEIS does not adequately demonstrate how impacts to roadless and wilderness values have been minimized under each alternative. The Tahoe contains 11 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) that cover 171,328 acres. DEIS at 69. Alternative 5 would result in a majority of IRA acreage being closed to OSV use. See DEIS at xiv (explaining that Alternative 2 would designate 78,875 acres of IRAs (46 percent) as open to OSV use; Alternative 3 would designate 45,272 acres of IRAs (26 percent); Alternative 4 would designate 112,388 acres (over 65 percent); and Alternative 5 would designate 5,161 acres of IRAs (3 percent)). But it is unclear from the analysis how the Forest Service decided which IRAs to exclude from OSV designations under Alternative 5, and why to include these areas in the OSV designations under the other alternatives.

More importantly, the Forest Service’s approach ignores OSV impacts to wilderness values. As explained above, TWS documented - using best available science - that 214,423 acres, including a majority of existing IRAs plus 74,263 acres of newly identified roadless areas, have wilderness values. See also Attachments C (Citizen Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Reports), G-K (comparing TWS’s citizen-inventoried roadless areas with proposed OSV route and area designations under Alternatives 1-5). Because OSV use degrades the naturalness and other ecological values of areas with wilderness characteristics, it is critical that the Forest Service demonstrate in the record how it located OSV trails and areas with the objective of minimizing impacts to lands documented as exhibiting wilderness characteristics. The Forest Service fails to explain how the OSV area designations – which encompass tens of thousands of acres of IRAs – were delineated to minimize impacts to IRAs with documented wilderness characteristics, which could prejudice the mandatory wilderness recommendation process in future forest plan revision (see more above). 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(c)(2)(v); FSH 1909.12, ch. 70.

A more defensible approach would be to not include in the OSV designations those IRAs that receive little OSV use anyway. This would ensure a robust forest planning process that can fairly evaluate and determine the appropriate balance of sustainable winter recreation opportunities and protection of wilderness-quality lands. To the extent that a future revised forest plan determines that certain roadless areas do not warrant protection as recommended wilderness and may be appropriate for motorized use, OSV designation decisions can be revisited accordingly.14 To the extent that IRAs are included in areas designated as open to cross-country OSV use, the final plan should clarify that OSV designation decisions may be revisited in the future to ensure consistency with the revised forest plan. This will help set public expectations and ensure that implementation-level winter travel planning decisions being made now do not have the practical effect of constraining the agency’s decision space in the upcoming comprehensive forest plan revision process.

Minimize Damage to Soil, Watershed, Vegetation

The Forest Service fails to demonstrate how it located OSV areas and trails under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 to minimize damage to watershed and water quality. The Forest Service relies on adequate snow to prevent resource damage, including harm to riparian areas, streams, and lakes. But as noted above, “[s]now depth and density and vary considerably, especially in the spring and fall” and “OSV use can cause rutting on underlying roads and trails, soil disturbance to streambanks at crossings and in areas without adequate snow depth and density.” DEIS Appendix E at 35.

14 See 36 C.F.R. §§ 219.15(e) (travel management plans developed prior to forest plan revision may be amended as necessary to ensure consistency); 212.54 (travel decisions “may be revised as needed to meet changing conditions”).

Minimize Harassment of Wildlife & Significant Disruption of Wildlife Habitat

The Forest Service must demonstrate in the record how it located OSV area boundaries to minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat. This includes OSV impacts to Pacific marten, fisher, California red-legged frog, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, wolverine, California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, Great gray owl, bald eagle, mule deer, and Lahontan cutthroat trout. The Forest Service fails to do so here.

As just one example, the analysis in the DEIS and Appendices E and F do not show how OSV area and trail designations were located to minimize impacts to Pacific marten, or to marten habitat connectivity corridors. Under each of the alternatives, a significant portion of marten winter habitat is designated for OSV use. Alternatives 1 and 2 designate 193,071 acres of suitable marten habitat for OSV use (almost 95 percent). DEIS at 210, Table 69. Alternative 3 designates 194,359 acres (95 percent), Alternative 4 designates 222,053 acres (95 percent), and Alternative 5 designates 171,178 acres (83 percent). Id. The Forest Service fails to demonstrate how it locates each OSV area and trail with the objective of minimizing harassment of marten and disruption of its habitat and habitat connectivity corridors.

Comparing acres of the type of marten habitat (delineated for winter use, spring use, denning, etc.) impacted in each OSV use area would give the public and the decision maker a more detailed understanding of project impacts to marten. This approach might also allow the Tahoe to focus on which areas have the biggest impact to marten, with the aim of demonstrating how impacts were minimized, as required. In the very least, the Forest Service should not designate for OSV use those areas that are not conducive to OSV and that provide suitable habitat and connectivity corridors for marten.

The Forest Service also fails to demonstrate how it minimizes harassment of California red-legged frog and disruption of its critical habitat. Alternatives 2 and 5 would designate the least amount of California red-legged frog suitable habitat as open to OSV use (just over 2,000 acres). DEIS at xx. Alternative 4 would designate 48,212 acres of suitable habitat and 930 acres of California red-legged frog ESA critical habitat as open to cross-country OSV use. DEIS at xx. But the agency never looks at the particular OSV areas it proposes to designate as open in relation to the location of California red-legged frog critical habitat. This is necessary to demonstrate how it located OSV area and trail designations with the objective of minimizing impacts.

The same failures apply to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. All of the alternatives would designate significant amounts of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical habitat as open to OSV use. DEIS at xx. Alternative 5 does the most to avoid Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical and suitable habitat with its OSV area designations. Id. But the Forest Service fails to show how it delineated its particular OSV area and trail designations with the objective of minimizing harassment of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog or disruption of its critical habitat. To minimize impacts to both frog species, the Forest Service relies on minimum snow depths and future monitoring. As explained elsewhere, the agency fails to justify how the broad range of snow depths under the proposed alternatives (anywhere from 6 inches to 24 inches) will summarily be sufficient to avoid damage to soil vegetation, and these frogs’ critical habitat.

The Forest Service fails to demonstrate how it located each specific OSV area and trail with the objective of minimizing harassment of wolverine or disruption of its habitat, instead relying on

12 minimum snow depths and future detections of individual wolverine to determine if OSV use has a potential to affect the species. See, e.g., DEIS Appendix E at 37. The Forest Service should not designate for OSV use those lands that are not conducive to OSV use and that provide important habitat for wolverine.

The Forest Service also fails to demonstrate how its OSV designations minimize significant disruption of wildlife habitat. It fails to minimize impacts to wildlife connectivity corridors, including corridors important for Pacific marten. The Forest Service should limit OSV use within important wildlife connectivity corridors to ensure minimization of impacts to marten. Seasonal restrictions on OSV cross-country use in important aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat are a very good idea. However, the dates proposed under Alternative 3 for designating cross-country OSV use within species’ habitat appear to contradict times when it would be important to protect these and other species’ habitat from OSV use. See DEIS at 30.

For example, the Forest Service proposes to designate OSV cross-country use in Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frog habitat April 15 or later, dependent on sufficient snow to buffer vegetative habitat. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs overwinter under ice in lakes and streams at high elevations. But immediately following snowmelt adult frogs emerge, and will even move over ice to reach breeding sites. Thus it seems contrary to the science and unreasonable to propose authorizing OSV use in Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (including designated critical habitat) April 15 or later, precisely when the frogs will be emerging from overwintering habitat and susceptible to direct impacts from OSV use. The Forest Service also proposes to designate OSV cross-country use in Pacific marten denning habitat August 1 to April 30. Allowing OSV use in Pacific marten denning habitat during the entirety of winter months, precisely when marten are most vulnerable to the impacts from OSV use. Given that marten females typically give birth in March and April,15 consistent with best available science we recommend restricting OSV cross-country use in marten denning habitat starting March 1 (allowing OSV cross-country use in Pacific marten denning habitat August 1 to February 28).

Minimize Impacts to Important Quiet Use Areas

The Forest Service has a duty to minimize conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands. The Forest Service states that in 2015 the most reported main activity for a visit to the Tahoe National Forest was downhill skiing (23 percent), while snowmobiling was reported as a main activity for 0.2 percent of visitors. DEIS at 72. It notes that a major concern for conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter uses are areas that can be accessed from the forest’s six winter trailheads: Yuba Gap, Donner Summit, Yuba Pass, Little Truckee Summit, Bassett’s, and China Wall. DEIS at 74. But instead of applying the minimization criteria to specific OSV areas and trails to minimize such conflicts, the Forest Service relies in large part on a comparison of acres open to OSV use in relation to acres open to non- motorized use. Instead, we urge the agency to identify specific areas with good access and suitable terrain for backcountry skiers and snowshoers, and close these specific areas to OSV use to demonstrate minimization of conflicts.

15 See, e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Oregon and Northern Coastal California Populations of the Pacific Marten (Martes caurina) Species Report (April 2015), page 8 (Attachment N).

We support the aspects of Alternative 2 that do not designate for OSV use the Loch Leven Lake area, a small area west of Donner Summit (including Andesite Peak), and an area around Boca Reservoir. Additional specific areas the Forest Service should not designate for OSV use to demonstrate minimization of conflicts with non-motorized use include: (1) an area between I-80 in the south and the northern edge of Coon Canyon within the Donner Summit area; (2) the area within the Scenery Management System definition of Foreground for the PCT, including Andesite Peak, in the Donner Summit area (but maintaining Andesite West trail as a designated OSV route); (3) an area around Sardine Lakes, Sierra Buttes, and Saxonia Lake in the Yuba NE area from Packer Lake road as the northern boundary (maintaining that road as designated for OSV use and designating an OSV PCT crossing); and (4) an area around the Loch Leven Lakes to include Fischer Lake in the Foresthill North area. These specific areas are discussed in more detail in the comment from Snowlands Network and Winter Wildlands Alliance, and illustrated on the map in Attachment 1 to those comments.

The Forest Service fails to minimize impacts to the PCT by proposing to locate open OSV areas that border the PCT under Alternative 2. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan states that winter sports plans for areas through which the PCT crosses should consider that snowmobiling along the PCT is prohibited by the National Trails System Act, P.L. 90-543, Section 7(c), and that motorized use of adjacent land to the PCT should be zoned to mitigate the noise conflict where cross-country skiing or snowshoeing is planned for the trail. DEIS at 55. See also DEIS at 70-71. Motorized use adjacent to the PCT substantially interferes with the nature and purpose of the PCT. By allowing OSV use alongside the PCT, Alternative 2 fails to preserve a quality non-motorized experience and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Management Plan and governing legal requirements. In contrast, we support the efforts under Alternative 5 to minimize conflicts with non-motorized uses by not designating areas of OSV use within a one-mile buffer around plowed trailheads, and not designating OSV use adjacent to the PCT up to one-half mile in the visible lands on each side of the trail. DEIS at 105. This approach is consistent with the recommendations set forth in the comment letter from Snowlands Network and Winter Wildlands Alliance.

5. Take a hard look at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., is designed to facilitate informed decision-making and public transparency by requiring federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives. While the analysis in the DEIS provides a relatively thorough discussion of many of the impacts associated with OSV use, it fails to adequately analyze certain impacts, including disclosing site-specific baseline information, best available science, impacts to future wilderness recommendations, impacts to wildlife and habitat connectivity corridors, impacts of authorizing OSV use on trails within OSV areas, and the cumulative impacts of climate change and the OSV designations.

Site-specific Information

Site-specific analysis is crucial. Here the Forest Service fails to conduct site-specific analysis. For example, the Forest Service states that effects of the modified proposed action “were aggregated rather than describing the site-specific effect at each road or trail, unless necessary for a particular sensitive resource or concern area.” DEIS at 51. This is problematic in light of the Ninth Circuit’s

14 direction for a granular analysis of OSV area and trail designations.16 It is also problematic when considering the impacts of OSV trails in relation to important wildlife habitat.

Forest Resources, Roadless & Wilderness Values

The Forest Service fails to consider how the proposed OSV designations might prejudice the future wilderness recommendation process. IRAs will be among the areas considered for potential wilderness recommendation or other protective management in future forest plan revision processes. 36 C.F.R. § 219.7(c)(2)(v); FSH 1909.12, ch. 70. As described above, The Wilderness Society documented the wilderness characteristics of 214,423 acres across the forest, encompassing many existing IRAs as well as newly inventoried roadless areas. Designating these areas as open to OSV use degrades their naturalness and other ecological values, diminishes opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation, and vastly reduces the likelihood that the Forest Service would recommend the areas or that Congress would eventually designate them as wilderness. Instead, the Forest Service gives a very cursory discussion of how OSV designations near wilderness boundaries and within IRAs will harm or detract from wilderness attributes and roadless characteristics. See, e.g., DEIS at 82, 86 (describing short-term impacts from Alternative 2 to solitude in wilderness and roadless characteristics of undisturbed soil and water, and solitude).

California Red-Legged Frog

The California red-legged frog is listed as threatened throughout its range in California. 61 Fed. Reg. 25813 (May 23, 1996). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) revised its designations of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog in 2010, which include three locations in or adjacent to the Tahoe National Forest. 75 Fed. Reg. 12,816 (Mar. 17, 2010). Portions of the Yuba South area include California red-legged frog designated critical habitat unit NEV-1. 75 Fed. Reg. at 12,880. Portions of the Foresthill West area include California red-legged frog designated critical habitat unit PLA-1. 75 Fed. Reg. at 12882. Alternatives 1 and 4 would designate 930 acres of California red- legged frog critical habitat as open to OSV use. DEIS at 267.

The agency provides a very general analysis of impacts to the California red-legged frog that lacks the site-specific analysis – especially to designated critical habitat – that is required. It concludes there will be no direct effects to California red-legged frog because OSV use would be prohibited over areas with inadequate snow depth. DEIS at 266. The assessment largely relies on minimum snow depths to prevent or minimize damage to soil and vegetation, but fails to consider the differences in minimum snow depths among alternatives and how that might have different impacts on the frogs, their suitable habitat, and their critical habitat under each alternative. For that variance, the Forest Service does not assess the differing impacts but dismisses it by concluding OSV operators will avoid travel over bare ground and soil. DEIS at 266. And it fails to assess any impacts from OSV cross-country use within critical habitat. It concludes that because there are no OSV trails designated within California red-legged frog critical habitat there will be no effect to that habitat. Yet OSV use within areas open to cross-country use are likely to impact California red-legged frog and its critical habitat, especially during breeding season (November through April) and mating (commonly in February or March). 75 Fed. Reg. at 12,816.

16 WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service, 790 F.3d 920, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating the agency must “apply the minimization criteria to each area [and trail] it designate[s] for [OSV] use” and conduct a “granular minimization analysis to fulfill the objectives of Executive Order 11644” and the Travel Management Rule).

As noted above, the Forest Service recognizes that “[s]now depth and density and vary considerably, especially in the spring and fall” and that “OSV use can cause rutting on underlying roads and trails, soil disturbance to streambanks at crossings and in areas without adequate snow depth and density.” DEIS Appendix E at 35. But there is no consideration of changing seasons and how that will change OSV impacts to critical and suitable habitat.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog

The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is listed as endangered. 79 Fed. Reg. 24,256 (April 29, 2014). Critical habitat. Threats to the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog include, inter alia, habitat degradation and fragmentation, climate change, and the interaction of various stressors impacting small remnant populations. Id. FWS designated Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical habitat that includes areas on the Tahoe. 81 Fed. Reg. 59,046, 59,098 (Aug. 26, 2016) (Subunit 2C). See also DEIS at 270 (Alternative 1 designates 84,795 acres of critical habitat open to OSV use; Alternative 2 designates 76,241 acres; Alternative 3 designates 47,520 acres; Alternative 4 designates 84,846 acres; and Alternative 5 designates 33,125 acres). Yet the Forest Service concludes OSV use during winter will not result in habitat disturbance, relying on minimum snow depths and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Id. This ignores the varying levels of minimum snow depth requirements, some of which may not be adequate to prevent contact between OSVs and the soil surface. It also relies on the voluntary actions of OSV riders to prevent damage to their machines, which is an unsupported assumption.

Similar to it analysis of the California red-legged frog, here the Forest Service’s analysis of impacts to the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is very general, looking at acres of critical habitat designated for OSV use. It fails to provide the site-specific analysis necessary in a NEPA analysis. The Forest Service concludes that direct effects from OSV use to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog will not occur during the majority of the OSV operating period because OSV use is not allowed in snow-free areas that would cause resource damage, and the frogs overwinter in deep lakes that do not freeze solid, and thus are not located where OSV use would typically occur. DEIS at 269. At high elevations, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs overwinter under ice in lakes and streams. 79 Fed. Reg. at 24,260. But because adult frogs emerge from overwintering sites immediately following snowmelt, and will even move over ice to reach breeding sites, 79 Fed. Reg. at 24,259, the Forest Service must consider OSV impacts to emerging adult frogs and that habitat.

Surviving populations of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog are small and isolated. 78 Fed. Reg. 24,472 (April 25, 2013). The Forest Service notes that Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog exists in only a few populations in ponds and streams on the Tahoe, generally in small numbers. DEIS at 257. When combined with the previously listed stressors to its survival, the smaller and isolated nature of the populations makes persistence of the species precarious throughout its range. Id.

Pacific Marten

Pacific marten17 tend to be wilderness species and are very intolerant of human activities.18 Their low reproductive rate and large spatial requirements, by mammalian standards, make them more vulnerable to extirpation and extinction.19 Marten are threatened by population declines across the West.20 Marten appear to seek deep snow during the winter, despite their lack of adaptations to cold temperatures, in order to isolate themselves from humans and to escape predators such as bobcat, fisher, and coyote.21 Bobcat are a significant predator on marten in the absence of deep snow.22 Grooming and cross-country OSV travel disrupts seasonal habitat partitioning among carnivores by facilitating generalists, such as coyote, into deep snow habitat where they would otherwise not be able to intrude.23 Nocturnal trail grooming also displaces marten from high quality habitat, which can lead to source-sink population dynamics between groomed and ungroomed areas.24

17 Information in this section was compiled under contract with The Wilderness Society by Darça Morgan, a professional wildlife biologist whose work has focused on public land management and wildlife conservation issues in the Sierra Nevada for the past 15 years. 18 S. W. Buskirk and R. A. Powell, Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-296 In S. W. Buskirk, et al., edtrs. Martens, sables, and fisher: biology and conservation (1994). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York; S. Buskirk and L. Ruggiero, American Marten. In: L.F. Ruggiero, et al., edtrs. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM- 254 (1994). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO. 184 pages; L.J., Lyon, et al.. In: Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254 (1994). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO. 184 pages; Slauson, K.M., Zielinski, W.J., and Hayes, J.P. 2006. Habitat selection by American martens in coastal California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2):458-468; Zielinski, W.J., Truex, R.L., Schlexer, F.V., Campbell, L.A., and Carroll, C. 2005a. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407; Zielinski, W.J., J. Warren, and T.A. Kirk. 2005b. Selecting candidate areas for fisher (Martes pennanti) conservation that minimize potential effects on martens (M. americana). A letter to California Department of Fish and Game dated June 27, 2005; USDA Forest Service 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001; Spencer, W. D. and Rustigian-Romsos, H. 2012. Decision support maps and recommendations for conserving rare carnivores in the interior mountains of California. Conservation Biology Institute. August 2012. 19 Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, technical editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 See n. 16, Buskirk and Powell 1994. See also Schneider, R.J., and Yodzis, P. 1994. Extinction dynamics in the American marten. Conservation Biology 8(4):1058-68. 21 Krohn, W., W. J. Zielinski, and R. B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pages 211-232 In G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodard, editors. Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and Management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. See also n.16, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994. 22 Bull E.L. and T. W. Heater. 2001. Survival, Causes of Mortality, and Reproduction in the American Marten in Northeastern Oregon Northwestern Naturalist Vol. 82, No. 1(1-6); Moriarty, K.M. 2014. Habitat use and movement behavior of Pacific Marten (Martes caurina) in response to forest management practices in Lassen National Forest, California. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University. 145 pages; Wengert, G.M., M.W. Gabriel, S.M. Matthews, J.M. Higley, R.A. Sweitzer, C.M. Thompson, K.L. Purcell, R.H. Barrett, L.W. Woods, R.E. Green, S.M. Keller, P.M. Gaffney, M. Jones, and B.N. Sacks. 2014. Using DNA to describe and quantify interspecific killing of fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(4):603-611. 23 Kolbe, J.A., J.R. Squires, D.H. Pletcher, L.F. Ruggiero. 2007. The Effect of Snowmobile Trails on Coyote Movements Within Lynx Home Ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(5). 24 Slauson, K.M., Zielinski, W.J., and M.K. Schwartz. 2017. Ski Areas Affect Pacific Marten Movement, Habitat Use, and Density. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81(5): 982-904.

As noted above, under each of the alternatives, a significant portion of marten winter habitat is designated for OSV use. Alternatives 1 and 2 designate 193,071 acres of suitable marten habitat for OSV use (almost 95 percent). DEIS at 210, Table 69. Alternative 3 designates 194,359 acres (95 percent), Alternative 4 designates 222,053 acres (95 percent), and Alternative 5 designates 171,178 acres (83 percent). Id. We applaud the Forest Service for considering impacts to marten habitat connectivity corridors. DEIS at xviii. But the Forest Service fails to consider the site-specific impacts of its particular OSV area designations, instead reviewing impacts from designating marten habitat across the forest as a whole. And the agency improperly downplays the impacts of these designations by focusing on the acres most conducive to OSV use. DEIS at 210. As explained elsewhere, areas not conducive to OSV use should not be designated open to OSV use, especially when located in important wildlife habitat.

The analysis in the DEIS does not fully consider or quantify the impacts of the OSV designations given marten’s vulnerability to human disturbance. Human presence and the removal of winter habitat may pose the most severe threat to female Pacific marten, even compared to habitat loss from ski resort development. One study found “the pulse stressor of human activity reduced the amount of available habitat in winter, especially for females, more than the reduction of functional connectivity by the press stressor of habitat fragmentation.”25 And the analysis underestimates the impacts of OSV disturbance on Pacific marten. Where they persist across their range, marten show a trend toward areas of lower human influence.26 The Forest Service should also consider impacts of nocturnal trail grooming on marten, as well as cumulative impacts from the OSV designations and climate change. Marten populations in California are small and isolated, therefore any negative impact to this species can have large impacts on population viability, compounding other risk factors.27 Even minor disturbances can have large negative consequences for the species.

Wolverine

In 2013 the FWS proposed to list the distinct population segment of the North American wolverine as threatened under the ESA. 78 Fed. Reg. 7864 (Feb. 4, 2013). After a district court vacated the FWS’s 2014 withdrawal of its proposal, in 2016 the FWS reopened the public comment period on its proposal to list the distinct population segment of wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States as threatened under the ESA. 81 Fed. Reg. 71670 (Oct. 18, 2016). Factors affecting the wolverine’s continued existence include projected decrease and fragmentation of wolverine habitat and range due to climate change, trapping, lack of regulatory mechanisms to address the threats to wolverine habitat from climate change, and loss of genetic diversity due to small population size.

Snowmobile use commonly overlaps with wolverine denning habitat.28 Dispersed recreational activities like motorized winter recreation have the potential to negatively impact wolverine by disrupting natal denning areas.29 Wolverines have one of the lowest successful reproductive rates

25 K.M. Slauson, et al. (2017). 26 Laliberte, A.S. and Ripple, W.J. 2004. Range Contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. BioScience 45(2):123-138. 27 Moriarty (2014). 28 Attachment M at 15. 29 See, e.g., R.M. Inman et al., Wolverine reproductive chronology, In: Wildlife Conservation Society, Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Cumulative Report (2007a); J. Krebs et al., Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada, 71 Journal of Wildlife Management 2180 (2007); E.C. Lofroth and J. Krebs, The Abundance and Distribution

18 known to mammals, and this is hypothesized as linked to winter energy constraints. Female wolverines select and enter dens and give birth in February to mid-March30 and the overlap of winter recreation with this energetically taxing period is highly concerning. Any disturbance during this important winter period can negatively affect productivity and other vital rates.31

Researchers have reported that female wolverines may be sensitive to human disturbance in the vicinity of natal and maternal dens, and disturbance from foot and snowmobile traffic has been purported to cause maternal females to abandon or move dens.32 One study found that females tended to avoid areas with heli-skiing and backcountry skiing areas.33 High-cirque snowmobile use, especially cross-country use and “high marking,” may present a substantial threat to wolverines and their habitat. Findings from a recent study suggest wolverine exposed to higher levels of winter recreation in their home range may avoid recreated areas and move at higher rates in higher intensity recreation areas.34 Off-road or dispersed recreation elicited a stronger response than recreation concentrated on access routes. In particular, denning female wolverines showed higher movement rate increases in response to higher intensity recreation areas, which causes higher expenditure of energy and reduced ability to hunt for food.

These behavioral changes can negatively affect individuals’ physiological stress levels and reproductive capacity in several ways, as evidenced in numerous studies on different species.35 It may reduce the amount of time and thus ability of female wolverines to hunt or to utilize food caches. This would result in significant additive energetic effects, reducing foraging success for adult females already stressed by the demands of bearing and raising a litter.36 In addition, this could reduce kit survival rates by increasing the potential for predation and exposure to cold temperatures. These results indicate that winter recreation may impact wolverines in as yet unknown ways.

As snowmobiling and backcountry skiing continue to grow in popularity and as snowpack continues to decline due to climate change, there is increasing concern that wolverine denning habitat may become limiting. Recent warming has already led to substantial reductions in spring snow cover in the mountains of western North America.37 Numerous recent and sophisticated studies support the conclusion that climate changes caused by global climate change are likely to negatively affect

of Wolverines in British Columbia, Canada, 71 Journal of Wildlife Management 2159 (2007); L.F. Ruggiero et al., Wolverine conservation and management, 71 Journal of Wildlife Management 2145 (2007). 30 A.J. Magoun and J.P. Copeland, Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites, 62 Journal of Wildlife Management 1313 (1998). 31 R. May et al., Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo, 12 Wildlife Biology 285 (2006); Krebs (2007). 32 S. Myrberget, The breeding den of the wolverine, 21 Fauna 108 (1968); Magoun and Copeland (1998); R.M. Inman et al., Wolverine reproductive rates and maternal habitat in Greater Yellowstone, In: Wildlife Conservation Society, Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Cumulative Report (2007b). 33 Krebs (2007). 34 K. Heinmeyer and J. Squires, Wolverine – Winter Recreation Research Project: Investigating the Interactions Between Wolverines and Winter Recreation Final Report (Dec. 15, 2017). 35 S.J. Creel et al., Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk, 16 Conservation Biology 809 (2002). 36 K. Heinemeyer and J. Squires, Wolverine – Winter Recreation Research Project: Investigating the interactions between wolverines and winter recreation use 2013 Progress Report (2013). 37 P. Mote et al., Declining mountain snowpack in western North America, 86 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1 (2005); G.T. Pederson et al., A century of climate and ecosystem change in Western Montana: what do temperature trends portend? 96 Climatic Change (2010).

19 wolverine habitat.38

The Forest Service determined the OSV designations under each of the alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect wolverine. DEIS at 203. It bases this determination, in part, on a conclusion that OSV use or related activities will not physically modify vegetative composition or structure of suitable wolverine habitat. Id. It discounts noise impacts from OSV use by claiming the percentage of suitable wolverine habitat impacted by OSV use will be lower than the 41 to 48 percent of the forest with potential for impacts, since concentration of OSV use is not equal across the landscape. Id. And the Forest Service discounts impacts from nighttime grooming activities, despite wolverine being nocturnal, on the basis that grooming equipment moves slowly and therefore is not likely to impact individuals. DEIS at 204. This analysis fails to consider relevant factors – including how OSV use impacts wolverine and its habitat. It also fails to consider cumulative impacts of climate change and designating OSV use in suitable wolverine habitat.

OSV Trails Within OSV Areas

As discussed above, the Forest Service fails to consider the impacts of authorizing OSV use on trails located within areas designated open to OSV use. This skews the entire impacts analysis in violation of NEPA. In particular, it ignores additional impacts to important Pacific marten habitat. OSV use of snow trails located in open areas will concentrate OSV use on those routes, causing greater disturbance in those areas and compacting snow that may induce its competitors and predators. The analysis in the DEIS must analyze and account for impacts associated with OSV use on snow trails located in open areas—particularly where those trails are marked on the ground or on Forest Service maps or guides and will continue to receive concentrated OSV use.

Cumulative Impacts of Climate Change and OSV Designations

The Forest Service considers impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from OSV exhaust and release of those pollutants into the air. DEIS at 18. It should also consider the cumulative effects of reduced and less reliable snowpack, effects of climate change as part of the baseline (making resources like soil and vegetation, and wildlife such as wolverine and Pacific marten more vulnerable to human- caused stressors), and changes in weather patterns due to climate change, including increased precipitation as opposed to snow, when combined with the impacts of OSV use on designated areas and trails. These cumulative impacts are especially concerning in light of possible impacts to Pacific marten, California red-legged frog and its critical habitat, and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and its critical habitat.

The Forest Service notes the number of OSV visitors is based on the amount of snowfall and length of the season. DEIS at 73. And it notes that less sufficient snow may lead to a loss of motorized recreation opportunities, or increased use conflicts. DEIS at 87. It should consider the cumulative

38 P. Gonzales et al., Wolverines and Climate Change, Unpublished report (2008); J.F. Brodie and E. Post, Nonlinear responses of wolverine populations to declining winter snowpack, 52 Population Ecology 279 (2010); J.P. Copeland et al., The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climate constraints limit its geographic distribution? 88 Canadian Journal of Zoology 233 (2010); K.S. McKelvey et al., Climate change predicted to shift wolverine distributions, connectivity, and dispersal corridors. 21 Ecological Applications 2882 (2011); S. Peacock, Projected 21st century climate change for wolverine habitats within the contiguous United States. Environmental Research Letters (2011); K.M. Johnston et al., Projected range shifting by montane mammals under climate change: implications for Cascadia’s National Parks, 3 Ecosphere 11 (2012).

20 impacts of climate change, declining snow pack, and shorter snow seasons on the number of OSV visitors to the Tahoe when considering the impacts of its OSV designations. Less reliable snow pack, when combined with the minimum snow depth requirements, is likely to concentrate OSV use and non-motorized winter recreation into smaller and smaller areas, increasing the potential for conflict among uses – especially in specific areas that are already popular destinations for both uses.

Provide Monitoring Details

Despite heavily relying on monitoring to track, assess, mitigate, and minimize OSV impacts to wildlife, the Forest Service fails to outline its specific monitoring plans. DEIS at 21. For example, to minimize harassment of northern goshawk protected activity center (PAC) in the Barker area, the Forest Service proposes to mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing recreation. DEIS Appendix E at 36. If the Forest Service documents evidence of disturbance, it will implement a breeding season limited operating period from February 15 through September 15. Id. There is no explanation of how the Forest Service plans to conduct monitoring to detect disturbances to the northern goshawk PAC, which is especially troubling in light of the agency’s limited resources for implementation, including monitoring, adaptive management, and enforcement. The same approach is used to demonstrate minimization of harassment of California spotted owl and its PACs. See, e.g., DEIS Appendix E at 41 (Black Butte area). Without specific details on monitoring and implementation, the public cannot meaningfully comment and fails to provide any necessary assurances. Plus, where the Forest Service is relying on monitoring and adaptive management to meet its obligations under the minimization criteria, it must analyze the effectiveness of those measures and ensure they are enforceable. At bottom, we recommend the Forest Service describe its monitoring protocol, analyze its effectiveness, and ensure it will be enforceable.

6. Consider a reasonable range of alternatives to adequately compare impacts.

NEPA requires agencies to “[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to a proposed action – an analysis that is considered the “heart” of an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. We applaud the Forest Service considering a broad range of five alternatives, including a no action alternative, which provides a strong basis for comparison among opportunities.

In our scoping comments, we proposed an alternative for OSV use designations aimed at minimizing impacts to sensitive wildlife, watersheds, soils, and wilderness-quality lands, and conflicts between motorized and non-motorized winter recreational uses. See Attachment O. In comparison, Alternative 5 largely addresses our recommendations and concerns by prohibiting OSV use in a majority of the citizen-inventoried roadless area;39 prohibiting OSV use in Research Natural Areas, the Onion Creek Experimental Forest, and the majority of Special Interest Areas;40 and prohibiting OSV use in the majority of deer winter range and emphasis areas.41

However, Alternative 5 still designates a portion of citizen-inventoried roadless areas as open to OSV use and designates OSV routes within citizen-inventoried roadless areas. See Attachment K.

39 Attachment K (map of citizen-inventoried roadless area compared with OSV designations under Alternative 5). 40 Attachment P (map of Alternative 5 compared to land use designations). 41 Attachments Q (map of Alternative 5 OSV area designations compared to biological resources) and R (map of Alternative 5 OSV route designations compared to biological resources).

And Alternative 5 does not minimize harassment of wildlife and disruption of wildlife habitat for certain vulnerable species. For example, there is no range of alternatives in terms of Pacific marten habitat open to cross-country OSV use. See DEIS at 210, Table 69 (Alternatives 1 and 2 designate 193,071 acres of suitable marten habitat for OSV use (almost 95 percent), Alternative 3 designates 194,359 acres (95 percent), Alternative 4 designates 222,053 acres (95 percent), and Alternative 5 designates 171,178 acres (83 percent)). In the very least, we recommend (as noted above) the Forest Service consider an alternative that restricts OSV cross-country use in marten denning habitat starting March 1 (allowing OSV cross-country use in Pacific marten denning habitat August 1 to February 28) to consider an alternative that would protect female marten with young. And there is no range of alternatives in terms of wolverine habitat designated open to OSV use. DEIS at 202-203 (Alternatives 1 and 2 designate 44 percent of suitable wolverine habitat open to OSV use, Alternative 3 designates 45 percent, Alternative 4 designates 48 percent, and Alternative 5 designates 41 percent).

7. Ensure compliance with the National Forest Management Act.

Demonstrate Compliance with 1990 Tahoe Forest Plan

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), projects like this must be consistent with the governing land and resource management plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i). Several aspects of the Tahoe’s OSV designations appear to be inconsistent with the Tahoe 1990 Forest Plan, and therefore would constitute a violation of NFMA. For example, the standard and guidelines 87 and 89 for marten den sites direct the Forest Service to mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the marten den site from existing recreation, and to evaluate proposals for recreation for their potential to disturb den sites. DEIS at 193. To comply with these standards and guidelines, presumably the Forest Service would need to develop site-specific baseline data based on best available science to determine where marten den sites exist within the project area. But the Forest Service makes no attempt, explaining that even marten predictive denning habitat models are lacking. DEIS at 205. Instead, the Forest Service relies on marten landscape-level habitat model to identify high predictability areas for martens. Id. Without identifying marten denning habitat, the Forest Service fails to demonstrate how the proposed actions are consistent with Forest Plan standards for management in these areas.

Avoid a Trend Toward Listing

As explained above, the Tahoe’s proposed OSV designations have the potential for substantial impacts on wildlife species, thereby threatening their viability. To comply with NFMA’s viability and diversity protection requirements, 16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(3)(B), the Forest Service must avoid any possibility of leading to a trend toward federal listing of species on the Tahoe. Given the broad ranging impacts to Pacific marten and its habitat, and its vulnerable populations size, the Forest Service should pay particular attention to avoid leading to a trend toward federal listing of the Pacific marten. It appears all alternatives, including Alternative 2, are likely to harm Pacific marten and thus threaten its viability and distribution. The Forest Service relies on a forest-scale analysis to support its finding that the designations are “not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing” for Pacific marten. DEIS at 211-212. This is insufficient. Analysis at the population-scale, individual-scale, and OSV-open-area scale is necessary. The analysis also fails to consider all negative impacts to marten (described above).

8. Ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

The Forest Service must ensure that its actions comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Tahoe National Forest provides habitat for California red-legged frog, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and wolverine. Section 7 of the ESA imposes a substantive obligation on federal agencies to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of” habitat that has been designated as critical for the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 524 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). Because the OSV designations may affect California red-legged frog and its critical habitat and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and its critical habitat (see section on impacts, above), the Forest Service must complete Section 7 consultation under the ESA. The Forest Service must ensure, based on best available science, that its proposal to designate OSV use on the Tahoe will not harm these species or degrade their critical habitat.

Where a species is proposed for listing (like the wolverine), the process is different. Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA requires a Federal action agency to conference with the Services if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize a proposed species, or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.10(a). See also 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (defining “[c]onference” as “a process which involves informal discussions between a Federal agency and the Service under section 7(a)(4) of the [ESA] regarding the impact of an action on proposed species or proposed critical habitat and recommendations to minimize or avoid the adverse effects.”). The agencies must record any results of a conference. Id. at § 401.10(e) (“The conclusions reached during a conference and any recommendations shall be documented by the Service and provided to the Federal agency”).

The Forest Service states that its assessment of impacts to threatened and endangered species is documented in a biological assessment (BA) located in the project record. DEIS at 194. In response to our request for a copy of that BA, the Forest Service provided a March 2018 BA that considers effects of the OSV designations on wolverine. But in email correspondence from May 17, 2018, the Forest Service has explained that the BA for aquatic species (assessing impacts to the California red- legged frog and its critical habitat and the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and its critical habitat) is still a work in progress and therefore unavailable for public review during the DEIS notice and comment period.

Importantly, we encourage the Forest Service to be transparent about the consultation process and affirmatively post all consultation documents, including any Forest Service Biological Evaluations or Assessments, any letters seeking concurrence, and any responses or Biological Opinions from FWS on the project webpage. Without these records, we are unable to assess the agency’s analysis of impacts to wildlife in light of FWS’s expert opinion. Providing this information will allow the public to view these critical documents, and other documents in the project record, without the need to submit a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Without this information being publicly available during the notice and comment period, we are unable to meaningfully comment on the agencies’ determinations or analysis.

Conclusion

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Marla Fox Rewilding Attorney [email protected]

Stan Van Velsor, Ph.D. Senior Regional Representative The Wilderness Society [email protected]

Don Rivenes Executive Director Forest Issues Group [email protected]

Susan Britting, Ph.D. Executive Director Sierra Forest Legacy [email protected]

Pamela Flick Senior California Representative Defenders of Wildlife [email protected]

Rudy Darling

President Sierra Foothills Audubon Society [email protected]

Patricia Puterbaugh Lassen Forest Preservation Group [email protected]

Karen Schambach President Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS *Copies of the following documents are available on the thumb drive accompanying the hard copy submission of our comments, sent via USPS priority mail, and should be included in the final project record.

Attachment A: May 2017 Report by Dr. Benjamin Hatchett on Observed and Stimulated Snow Depths for Commencing Over Snow Vehicle Operation in the Sierra Nevada, prepared for Winter Wildlands Alliance.

Attachment B1: The Wilderness Society, Protocol for a Citizens’ Wilderness Inventory & Evaluation Under the U.S. Forest Service’s Chapter 70 Directives (Nov. 2017).

Attachment B2: Appendix A to Protocol for a Citizens’ Wilderness Inventory & Evaluation.

Attachment C: Detailed narrative reports for each of the ten inventory units describing its wilderness characteristics.

Attachment D: Martin Nie & Christopher Barns, The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Wilderness Act: The Next Chapter in Wilderness Designation, Politics, and Management, 5 Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 237-301 (2014).

Attachment E: Idaho Conservation League, In Need of Protection: How Off-Road Vehicles and Snowmobiles Are Threatening the Forest Service’s Recommended Wilderness Areas (Feb. 2011).

Attachment F: John C. Adams & Stephen F. McCool, Finite Recreation Opportunities: The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Off-Road Vehicle Management, 49 Natural Resources Journal 45-116 (Winter 2009).

Attachment G: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 1 area and route designations compared to citizen-inventoried roadless area.

Attachment H: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 2 area and route designations compared to citizen-inventoried roadless area.

Attachment I: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 3 area and route designations compared to citizen-inventoried roadless area.

Attachment J: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 4 area and route designations compared to citizen-inventoried roadless area.

Attachment K: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 5 area and route designations compared to citizen-inventoried roadless area.

Attachment L: The Wilderness Society and BlueRibbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org, Key Concepts for Implementing the Minimization Criteria (March 2017).

Attachment M: A. Switalski, Snowmobile Best Management Practices for Forest Service Travel Planning: A Comprehensive Literature Review and Recommendations for Management – Wildlife, 12 Journal of Conservation Planning 13 (2016).

Attachment N: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Oregon and Northern Coastal California Populations of the Pacific Marten (Martes caurina) Species Report (April 2015).

Attachment O: Proposed Preferred Alternative for Tahoe National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation (Appendix 1 to the March 25, 2015, Scoping Comment Letter from The Wilderness Society, WildEarth Guardians, Forest Issues Group, Sierra Foothills Audubon, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Sierra Club, and Sierra Forest Legacy).

Attachment P: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 5 area and route designations compared to land use designations.

Attachment Q: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 5 area designations compared to biological resources.

Attachment R: Map of Tahoe OSV DEIS Alternative 5 route designations compared to biological resources.